Support NeoGAF

[farnham]

cant wait!!!!!!!!!

 

[Discotheque]

That's probably true for the majority of the players, but I suck balls at the MP and yet I found the campaign to be fun (story was lame though but whatever)

 

[Mairu]

Err, it's a completely arbitrary number either way considering missions vary in length. SC2 campaign was longer than SC1 vanilla campaign and BW had fewer than 20 missions.

I agree. As long as the campaign is a decent length in terms of hours and we get another group of side-missions like the Zeratul stuff I'll be satisfied

 

[Pandaman]

i dont see that as a huuuge issue, gameplay should be the first priority. the example given could be solved just by having a nydus pop up and gobble her up.

and even if they say gameplay comes first, the ideas proposed will always be constrained by her nature as a terran/zerg hybrid. they wont give her a 'summon demonbane' ability because that would never make sense in the context of the game, which is lore at the end of the day.

 

[V_Arnold]

Wow Panda, take a chill pill imho
(And I do not mean your last post, but the 10+ ones before it)

I grew tired of mission counting LOOONG before WOL even came out. Who cares if there are missions with 30+ mins of gameplay and there are missions with 5 mins of gameplay.

I do not care if the numbers match some outside-of-the-game expectation or not. If they can brging enjoyable, replayable, and mid-to-long missions, I am happy. Be that 15, 20, or 30.

 

[Vespene]

I think this "debut" trailer was put together at the last minute since the originally planned one leaked.

 

[Tacitus_]

From TL:

At the mission on Char, Kerrigan received +6 infestation, granting her to the next level.

Abathur took notice that Kerrigan now looks different after every battle, and he reassure her that is not only an opinion, as his eyes are able to clearly distinguish genetic material. While Kerrigan has some remorse about slaughtering innocents, it is the thoughts of her becoming more like Mengsk is what truly bothers her.

Slight hope for the story.

... I should probably stop lying to myself.

 

[Bowdz]

No that's the right way to do it, I just had no idea this game was so early still. I mean SC2 came out last summer.

I definitely think gameplay needs to be the priority, but when one aspect is lagging so far behind the other, it seems like the designers and writers need to work in tandem more than they currently are.

 

[Pandaman]

Err, it's a completely arbitrary number either way considering missions vary in length. SC2 campaign was longer than SC1 vanilla campaign and BW had fewer than 20 missions, so the only really valid complaint is that you just really really wanted to play as zerg/protoss in the vanilla campaign.

and they did that by rehashing a nonstop series of artificial timed sections that extended the game. skilled players cant speedrun sc2 because 90% of the player base is waiting for missions to end.

wait for X amount of trains sent at x intervals.
collect X amount of money before unlocking the second section of the mission.
mine x minerals, but oops lava.
wait for this uncontrolable hero unit that takes timed breaks.
wait X amount of time to win.
defend X Y amount of times.
wait for this mining laser to destroy this building, no you cannot speed up the process.

sc2's length was padded at every point, cutting missions doesn't make it easy to believe that this padding will be gone.

 

[Nirolak]

From TL:





Slight hope for the story.

... I should probably stop lying to myself.

I think the main issue is that it comes down to the execution rather than the base concepts.

Like, the base concept of Resident Evil is about an arms corporation developing genetically mutated creatures for terrorist organizations and third world countries to use as weapons against vastly superior military might, which is a totally awesome setup for a plot.

The final result though...

 

[syllogism]

and they did that by rehashing a nonstop series of artificial timed sections that extended the game. skilled players cant speedrun sc2 because 90% of the player base is waiting for missions to end.

wait for X amount of trains sent at x intervals.
collect X amount of money before unlocking the second section of the mission.
mine x minerals, but oops lava.
wait for this uncontrolable hero unit that takes timed breaks.
wait X amount of time to win.
defend X Y amount of times.
wait for this mining laser to destroy this building, no you cannot speed up the process.

sc2's length was padded at every point, cutting missions doesn't make it easy to believe that this padding will be gone.

SC2 campaign is objectively better designed and interesting than SC1 vanilla campaign. You may have preferred the SC1 campaign for subjective reasons, for instance the superior storyline, but it I disagree. Speedrunning times are completely irrelevant.

 

[dimb]

I definitely think gameplay needs to be the priority, but when one aspect is lagging so far behind the other, it seems like the designers and writers need to work in tandem more than they currently are.

Metzen has some crazy tenure. That's pretty much the long and short of why the story in Blizzard products is a remedial take on every trope in fantasy/sci-fi existence.

 

[Pandaman]

I do not care if the numbers match some outside-of-the-game expectation or not. If they can brging enjoyable, replayable, and mid-to-long missions, I am happy. Be that 15, 20, or 30.

You do not care that you were promised something in the place of missing zerg/protoss missions in wol and are now being shortchanged?

okay i guess. i can't make you care anymore than i can understand why you dont.

 

[Neki]

and they did that by rehashing a nonstop series of artificial timed sections that extended the game. skilled players cant speedrun sc2 because 90% of the player base is waiting for missions to end.

wait for X amount of trains sent at x intervals.
collect X amount of money before unlocking the second section of the mission.
mine x minerals, but oops lava.
wait for this uncontrolable hero unit that takes timed breaks.
wait X amount of time to win.
defend X Y amount of times.
wait for this mining laser to destroy this building, no you cannot speed up the process.

sc2's length was padded at every point, cutting missions doesn't make it easy to believe that this padding will be gone.

Does that make me a bad person that I enjoy the game-play of the campaign? Sure, the game-play didn't lend itself well to speed runs, but the padding made it play better, didn't it?

 

[syllogism]

You do not care that you were promised something in the place of missing zerg/protoss missions in wol and are now being shortchanged?

okay i guess. i can't make you care anymore than i can understand why you dont.

There were no missing missions; the campaign was exactly as long as everyone had any right expect it to be. It wouldn't have been any longer had they included all 3 races.

 

[jersoc]

Does that make me a bad person that I enjoy the game-play of the campaign? Sure, the game-play didn't lend itself well to speed runs, but the padding made it play better, didn't it?

not at all, I think if it was straight up kill base for all missions that would have been rather boring. I like the mix of different things too.

 

[Pandaman]

SC2 campaign is objectively better designed and interesting than SC1 vanilla campaign.

okay, prove it.

Speedrunning times are completely irrelevant.

ugh, dont be silly. i dont really care if someone can beat a mission 10 minutes faster than a normal person can. i don't really care that someone even better can squeeze off an extra 30 seconds. What i do care about is that good skill based game design creates circumstances where things like speedruns are possible. if a level takes 20 minutes to beat, it shouldn't be because you had to wait 20 minutes, it should be because it took you 20 minutes to solve the win condition.

in typical modern day blizzard fashion, the only decent level they managed to design was only because it was unwinnable and they correctly chose to not take control away from the player.

in short, i like strategy in my real time strategy games. but apparently thats bad campaign design.

 

[54-46!]

The Protoss mini campaign in WoL was awesome, I hope they can tap in to that for the primary missions in Heart of the Swarm.

 

[Nirolak]

Blizzard DotA apparently won't be out until Heart of the Swarm.

Blizzard DotA aiming for Heart of the Swarm launch, says StarCraft boss

StarCraft II lead producer Chris Sigaty has said that Blizzard DotA is still in development at the company.

“We basically put it back up in the shop and did some massive overhauls to some things, which I’m not going to go into specific detail about,” Sigaty told Joystiq during the first media showcase of the second story chapter for StarCraft II, Heart of the Swarm.

He told the site that it was aiming to have the mod ready for release around the time Heart of the Swarm launches, which looks set to be a 2012 launch.

In terms of it actually requiring HotS to play it, Sigaty went mum.

“We’re not even talking about the business level decision of it at this point.”

Blizzard Dota was one of four mods that was announced during Blizzcon last year for Wings of Liberty. All of those mods bar Dota have since launched.

Its development also ties in with that of true sequel Dota 2, being made by Valve.

Source: http://www.vg247.com/2011/05/31/bli...eart-of-the-swarm-launch-says-starcraft-boss/

 

[John_B]

Visuals are upgraded. The campaign looks to play very differently. Looking good.

 

[syllogism]

okay, prove it.


ugh, dont be silly. i dont really care if someone can beat a mission 10 minutes faster than a normal person can. i don't really care that someone even better can squeeze off an extra 30 seconds. What i do care about is that good skill based game design creates circumstances where things like speedruns are possible. if a level takes 20 minutes to beat, it shouldn't be because you had to wait 20 minutes, it should be because it took you 20 minutes to solve the win condition.

in typical modern day blizzard fashion, the only decent level they managed to design was only because it was unwinnable and they correctly chose to not take control away from the player.

in short, i like strategy in my real time strategy games. but apparently thats bad campaign design.

Only a few levels function the way you describe and there were similar levels in sc1 (protect x for y minutes)

 

[Twig]

Well here is Blizzard's problem:



So the design process is mechanics first, story second. It makes for great gameplay, but lackluster, disjointed stories.

That's how Valve does it, too.

 

[Neo Child]

okay, prove it.


ugh, dont be silly. i dont really care if someone can beat a mission 10 minutes faster than a normal person can. i don't really care that someone even better can squeeze off an extra 30 seconds. What i do care about is that good skill based game design creates circumstances where things like speedruns are possible. if a level takes 20 minutes to beat, it shouldn't be because you had to wait 20 minutes, it should be because it took you 20 minutes to solve the win condition.

thats really up to a designer to decide that. its still strategy to figure out how you can defend a base for 20 minutes, or how to infiltrate a base in a set time limit etc.

 

[dimb]

thats really up to a designer to decide that. its still strategy to figure out how you can defend a base for 20 minutes, or how to infiltrate a base in a set time limit etc.

I found that the best "strategy" was usually to just make more marines.

 

[Neki]

I found that the best "strategy" was usually to just make more marines.

You mean tanks?

 

[syllogism]

BW even had one of those "Obtain x minerals" missions, but apparently lava somehow makes it less interesting/strategic (???)

 

[AppleMIX]

Only a few levels function the way you describe and there were similar levels in sc1 (protect x for y minutes)

This.

They're are plenty of mission that a skilled played could complete much faster than a less skilled player. The difference is instead of "go here and kill this", they tried to add some dimension to the single player campaign by changing what exactly you have to do.

 

[V_Arnold]

thats really up to a designer to decide that. its still strategy to figure out how you can defend a base for 20 minutes, or how to infiltrate a base in a set time limit etc.

Yeah, I do not get this either.

Okay, prove it

Whao.... now this is good denial, I guess. Let us not hate on the missions itself just because you did not like the story itself. SC/SCBW Story >> SCII Story, SCII Missions >>> SC/SCBW Missions

 

[Haunted]

Very excited about the new units and whether some of them will also make their way into the multiplayer.

Looks like Browder wants to get rid of the overseer and solve Zerg's scouting problems by introducing a different unit. Interesting.

Nice OP ling upgrades here. Speed, spawn broodlings on death, and (I assume) even faster build speed.

Zerg has to be OP for the singeplayer so all the scrubs can beat the campaign missions.



edit: I'm with Syllogism on the WoL > BW front as well, sorry Panda. It was a much more interesting and varied campaign than the ones in SC1. Only looking at the gameplay missions (not the surrounding atmosphere created by presentation and story) WoL was just better and more interesting in every way. SC1 had so many simple 1vX missions that were little more than skirmishes + chatter.

WoL is much more elaborate (and it should be considering the difference in release dates!), there's really no explanation for preferring BW except nostalgia or the subjective preference of the surrounding circumstances.

 

[dimb]

You mean tanks?

Tanks have no stim.

 

[Neo Child]

whatever, i cant wait for some more epic one liners. i just wished they had a bigger build up to

Spoiler

kerrigans humanisation

<--WoL spoiler, though this whole thread is really.

its time to kick this revolution into overdrive

 

[Tacitus_]

I think the main issue is that it comes down to the execution rather than the base concepts.

Like, the base concept of Resident Evil is about an arms corporation developing genetically mutated creatures for terrorist organizations and third world countries to use as weapons against vastly superior military might, which is a totally awesome setup for a plot.

The final result though...

This is what worries me. WoL didn't exactly convince me with the execution of its plot.

 

[pieatorium]

ok

 

[AppleMIX]

Hope the big queens make it into multiplayer.

Requires Lair Tech
Massive
Throw in some of the old queen abilities

It would solve the force field problem while making phoenix's still viable in zvp.

 

[Morbid Angel]

I want lings with leap in multiplayer. So imba.

 

[throwawayname]

Hope they don't fuck up the multiplayer..

Spoiler

I know they won't

 

[CarbonatedFalcon]

So the story of WoL wasn't a grade A enlightening experience, but saying it's drivel compared to some of the other stories in videogames is nonsense. The gameplay was top notch at least. I enjoyed it.


Anyway, it should be a fun campaign whenever it releases and I'm interested as to what will happen with the multiplayer if they're taking out units. I'd put a beta as happening Q1-Q2 of 2012 though with a Q2-Q3 release likely. With a Q3 beta of Diablo 3 and hopefully Q4 release this year, I wouldn't place the SC2 stuff any earlier - perhaps later if Diablo 3 is delayed.

I am probably more excited for Diablo than additional SC2 at this point though.

 

[Pandaman]

Only a few levels function the way you describe and there were similar levels in sc1 (protect x for y minutes)

lets examine:

mar sara
-tutorial hero mission, no constraints
-artifact retreival, no constraints
-new gettysburg holdout II: survive for 20 minutes.
Monlyth: no constraints.
agria: timed colonist evac constraint
Meinhoff: night/day cycle is a weak constraint.
haven: contraint, you must aim for and protect/destroy zerg forces/protoss forces as they are revealed to you
redstone: lava cycle actively prevents you from achieving your goal and moving throughout the map.
Bel'Shir: series of timed escort missions
new folsom: no constraints
tarsonis: timed train arrivals
deadmans port: collect x minerals to determine ally/enemy status of third party before completing mission
odin: escort mission segmented with forced breaks. will not end until tychus pushes the nuke button.
korhal: no constraints
Castanar: no constraints
xil: mining laser
Tyrador VII: constraint, sequential and timed data core destruction
typhon XI: constraint, players must relocate their base and reclaim supply/addon/gyser base construction periodically.
worldship: no constraints
char:
no constraint in the landing
optional constraint of a hero mission
xel naga timing constraint
zeratul missions: no constraints

now here's the thing to understand. there's nothing wrong with any one of the above missions. there's nothing wrong with timed segments as a rule. they can be excellent for fostering good game play, Bel'Shir was an excellent example of an escort mission. hero missions in general have very regular completion times as a consequence of their nature, but that's okay because its an exception made no accommodate a different style of play. the level in utter darkness was also a masterful example of unrestricted player gameplay and i feel shatter the skies was a very strong homage to brood war mission structure.

that said, while setpiece missions are not inheriantly bad for strategy games, there comes a point where some people will say 'this is oversaturated'. this is not a number everyone can point to and agree with, but it does happen and i say, when most missions end in failure or victory based on something beyond the players control that is on a set schedule, there is a problem.

now lets talk about the actual game design.

my believe that sc1 and brood war are better designed campaigns stems from a very simple fact of the multiplayer component. starcraft is an economy game. the typical game is won and lost on long term gameplay decisions and economic posturing. given that, very very very very few scnerios in wings of library hinge on the player making smart economy decisions. the game babies players at every step with money drops on the map and grants of an established techtree at the beginning of levels. few if any levels require a second base income as a necessary component to victory. it is my opinion that a game that must make sacrifices of its playstyle for the sake of design is poorly designed. it is my opinion that a game that must consistently rely on constraints to the players ability to make long term decisions is poorly designed. i feel a game consistently controls the endgame scenario for lack of actual challenge is poorly designed.

hell, compare the endgame missions of both games. sc2 gives you a complete techtree of superbuffed preupgraded units and units with hero properties, it gives you a resource cache that cannot be depleted in the timeframe of the mission and no options for a persistent map presence outside of your bases initial starting area.

in starcaft 1, you are given 100 minerals, 100 gas, a forge, a barracks and an engineering bay with only one relatively undepletable mining base and one small mining base. two hero units and a collection of unupgraded tier 1. how you win that mission is ENTIRELY up to you and your abilities as a player.

thats really up to a designer to decide that. its still strategy to figure out how you can defend a base for 20 minutes, or how to infiltrate a base in a set time limit etc.

it can be strategy, but there's no reason to consistently rely on it in lue of the actual [multiplayer] gameplay.

BW even had one of those "Obtain x minerals" missions, but apparently lava somehow makes it less interesting/strategic (???)

as i said before, there's nothing wrong with having some missions like this. its a good way to break up and pace the game, my problem is the reliance on these missions.

Whao.... now this is good denial, I guess. Let us not hate on the missions itself just because you did not like the story itself. SC/SCBW Story >> SCII Story, SCII Missions >>> SC/SCBW Missions

lol, its funny how y'all like to just assert your positions but accuse me of being the one in denial. of the people here, im the only one willing to talk about this while you all just want to insult me for disagreeing.

SC1 had so many simple 1vX missions that were little more than skirmishes

wha... what do you think rts games are? base building and skirmishing is supposed to be the point.

also terran get instant supply depots, miners and units anywhere on the map in WoL, but lings are op in HOTS. riiiight.

 

[HolyCheck]

It's ok guys, he plays Zerg

 

[V_Arnold]

Panda, it is okay to want multiplayer in singleplayer mode also, but Blizzard DID NOT want that. You are left out in the cold, okay, others are happy.

If you want multiplayer, play multi. Hell, play against AI on a variety of maps
What you stated on the "problem side" are not problems. Those are complaints because you do not agree with their directions. That is not a "better than..." or a "worse than.." quality. It is just a direction. To reverse it, everyone who loved WOL can say: BW was nothing more than reskinned skirmish chain with a few twists. And that is true also.

Except that it is always easier to insert a reskinned skirmish than to create a mechanic-based map like the ones seen in WOL.

 

[AppleMIX]

my believe that sc1 and brood war are better designed campaigns stems from a very simple fact of the multiplayer component. starcraft is an economy game. the typical game is won and lost on long term gameplay decisions and economic posturing. given that, very very very very few scnerios in wings of library hinge on the player making smart economy decisions.

Why is this a problem? SC2 doesn't have to be exactly like multiplayer game. If you want to play a game that rewards smart economic thinking and good decision making, play multiplayer. It is far more challenging and rewarding than single player could ever be.

You also have some how come to the conclusion that SC1 was some super challenging single player game. When in reality, it was not.

hell, compare the endgame missions of both games. sc2 gives you a complete techtree of superbuffed preupgraded units and units with hero properties, it gives you a resource cache that cannot be depleted in the timeframe of the mission and no options for a persistent map presence outside of your bases initial starting area.

in starcaft 1, you are given 100 minerals, 100 gas, a forge, a barracks and an engineering bay with only one relatively undepletable mining base and one small mining base. two hero units and a collection of unupgraded tier 1. how you win that mission is ENTIRELY up to you and your abilities as a player.

Why exactly is this a negative?

SC2 final mission rewarded players byallowing them to use units and abilities that you earned thought out the entire campaign.

I would be flat out dumb to start each mission with a blank slate (in a modern game).

It's ok guys, he plays Zerg

I play Zerg too and I find his argument to be lacking.

 

[Pandaman]

Panda, it is okay to want multiplayer in singleplayer mode also, but Blizzard DID NOT want that. You are left out in the cold, okay, others are happy.

no, you fail to understand.

you can make a perfectly good fps.
you can take that fps and maybe squeeze in a cool little tps segment, thats fine.
however there is a problem when you then make another 'fps' thats mostly tps gameplay. even if that tps was the best tps of all time, its not okay.

starcraft is a real time strategy genre, wanting RTS based challenges as part of the gameplay inside of an rts game is not 'wanting multiplayer in singleplayer'. the flexibility of the map editor and game engine should be taken over the game itself.

Finally, saying that some people were happy and others were not does nothing to justify the claim that was said and supported that sc2 was objectively the better campaign.

If you want multiplayer, play multi. Hell, play against AI on a variety of maps

"if you want to play the real time strategy part of your rts, dont play the single player campaign' is fucking horrible design bro.

even if the campaign was amazingly good for its gameplay, [which it isnt] its terrible design.

What you stated on the "problem side" are not problems. Those are complaints because you do not agree with their directions. That is not a "better than..." or a "worse than.." quality. It is just a direction. To reverse it, everyone who loved WOL can say: BW was nothing more than reskinned skirmish chain with a few twists. And that is true also.

hmm, please notice I'm not the one who is making claims that one game is objectively better than the other. that's your team. don't push your faults on me.

Except that it is always easier to insert a reskinned skirmish than to create a mechanic-based map like the ones seen in WOL.

the difficulty to create the map doesn't matter at all, why would you even waste time typing this?

Why exactly is this a negative?

because its a strategy game. you are not supposed to be spoonfed every step of the way, that removes the strategy aspect by constraining player decisions.

I play Zerg too and I find his argument to be lacking.

lol, you dont understand arguments. i win by default because im not the one making the claim, i can say nothing because the burden is not on me to defend my views. my opinions on the differences between the games are admittedly subjective, i flesh them out as a charity. they aren't arguments, they're points of view which I've been insulted for holding and told to be objectively wrong. you people give me a headache.

 

[Tacitus_]

Stop acting like the single player wasn't RTS gameplay. Only the few hero missions didn't have it. You don't have to like the mission gimmicks, but the gimmicks didn't somehow take out the RTS gameplay.

 

[pieatorium]

What do yo mean "you people".

 

[Pandaman]

Stop acting like the single player wasn't RTS gameplay. Only the few hero missions didn't have it. You don't have to like the mission gimmicks, but the gimmicks didn't somehow take out the RTS gameplay.

even without the gimmicks the campaign had alot of problems as an rts, thats true.

What do yo mean "you people".

people who want to be heard but do not want to talk.

 

[V_Arnold]

What do yo mean "you people".

I would also like to know what "my group" is. And if I am the leader, then how much money do I get for doing this?

 

[Tacitus_]

even without the gimmicks the campaign had alot of problems as an rts, thats true.

Really now? I get the economy part since you were almost forced to single base almost every mission, but other than that you had the RTS backbone gameplay (base management/building + troop management) with mission based gimmicks.

 

[Pandaman]

I would also like to know what "my group" is. And if I am the leader, then how much money do I get for doing this?

you are not the original claim maker, so you are not the leader.
syllogism is. he claimed the game was objectively better than sc1/bw, you agreed. beyond that you accused me of denial for even asking for an argument.

 

[AppleMIX]

because its a strategy game. you are not supposed to be spoonfed every step of the way, that removes the strategy aspect by constraining player decisions.


lol, you dont understand arguments. i win by default because im not the one making the claim, i can say nothing because the burden is not on me to defend my views. my opinions on the differences between the games are admittedly subjective, i flesh them out as a charity. they aren't arguments, they're points of view which I've been insulted for holding and told to be objectively wrong. you people give me a headache.

A.) You make it seem as though the game is on auto pilot when it is actually not. You still have to worry about macro, positioning and unit compilation. The only difference is between the two scenarios is that it didn't spend 10 minutes building up my base.

B.) You're backing up your opinions with claims such as SC2 is too easy and it places artificial constants on the player. You're taking your opinion and attempting to justify it with facts.

That is a argument.

If I say abortion is wrong, that is a opinion. If I say Abortion is wrong because of X, Y and Z that is a argument.

 

[Pandaman]

Really now? I get the economy part since you were almost forced to single base almost every mission, but other than that you had the RTS backbone gameplay (base management/building + troop management) with mission based gimmicks.

well, i disliked how unit upgrade paths were external and limited in scope. i would much rather research siege mode every game i want or need it than buy siege mode and find myself in a game situation where i would prefer blue flame but cannot access it because the money system has a limited amount below the sum cost of mercenaries/all upgrades. if they had to make it external, i feel it should also have been grindable to some extent.

there is some merit to forcing people to make do, but i dont feel that was blizzards intention since most games grant you mission specific units/tech at the start.